We won’t prey on people’s natural hopes and dreams. We won’t think about how much people fear the unknown, and decide to create an otherworld where they can be tortured without comprehension and without end- an otherworld that is by definition unprovable. We won’t look at the loneliness of people and promise them the greatest companionship of all, if only they will subscribe to our archaic doctrines and help spread our message throughout the world.
We won’t force our fellow atheists to override their consciences. We won’t create a network of support for prominent atheists to be protected when they are accused of child abuse and rape. We won’t command torture and murder when minor sect differences exist. We won’t hold up as a hero an atheist who unabashedly raped a 9-year-old girl, and then justify centuries of rape of women and girls based on this.
We won’t seek to destroy the possibility of knowledge. We won’t force laws that impose superstitions on children in the place of science. We won’t impede medical progress when it violates some archaic beliefs. We won’t harm women for seeking an education, or prevent them from accessing any knowledge. We won’t create a world-wide system where blind obedience is rewarded and questioning is punished.
We won’t imprison women in a relentless cycle of suppression and misery. We won’t create a belief system that threatens eternal torture for speaking up. We won’t commend sexual immorality and crime of men because a 3,000 year old god was fine with it. We won’t help along domestic violence and abuse by promising “prayer” as the solution to all problems. We won’t restrict women’s rights by promoting pregnancy and child-raising as the ultimate holy goal of their lives.
We are atheists, and we live in the present; we won’t allow the injustice and the misery of the centuries past to limit our futures.
Claim that their own corrupt, deviant subversion of the human concept of marriage is the default, despite marriage having existed for thousands of years beforehand
The difference between making blanket statements about male or white or cis or straight or rich people and making ones about women or LGBTQ people or people of color or the poor is that marginalized groups use generalizations to identify their oppressors as a form of self protection. And this is different from privileged groups who use generalizations to further oppress the marginalized, to making statements that allow for their further dehumanization and vilification. Cultural context is ESSENTIAL. People with any of these privileges who want to be allies need to understand this basic theory because otherwise we are held back by our own egos and inability to see what role we play in that oppression.
kind of wondering if the Steve from Blues Clues thing was more or less a temperature check to see how well the early childhood media brainwashing worked, and how easily people can be triggered and manipulated by emotional messages from fictional personas with whom now-adults formed parasocial bonds as children due to the faux-interactive, if not uncanny question-response format of the tv shows from which these personas are derived
Fellas, is it brainwashing to experience emotions based on childhood experiences
And…what, exactly, is the alternative to a show like Blue’s Clues, if you think that making an educational program that sincerely tries to make children feel empowered and loved is brainwashing? No programming at all, leaving underprivileged kids without an extra educational boost or sense of companionship? A robotic voice with no personality shouting the alphabet over and over? Seriously curious here.
yeah op you seem like someone who has normal and well-adjusted opinions on what qualifies as “brainwashing”. the fact that you apparently have kids is bone-chilling
The Jews of Yemen have lived in that region for twenty-five hundred years. Just decades ago, their population was around sixty thousand, and today, only about ninety Jews remain in Yemen.
But apparently, ninety Jews in a country of 25 million people is ninety too many for Yemen, and now these last remaining Jews of a lineage stretching back millennia are faced with the ultimatum of either throwing off their Jewishness or fleeing to a country they have never known.
And much like in the time of the Spanish Inquisition, a third option lingers: death.
There’s a certain type of comedian who thinks they’re the main character of life, and that the most important angle on any issue is what THEY think of it. Whether that’s their take on the latest MCU film, or their observations on politics.
You can’t understand these people until you realise they think they’re modern-day philosophers. And they’re not. Philosophersare modern-day philosophers.
I do believe comedians are primarily for entertainment. The fact that we can say something meaningful is great but bonus.
For thousands of years, there have been people who don’t fit their culture’s dominant model of gender. Bigots will try and convince you that this is NEW, and that it’s a problem in some way. Don’t believe them. Don’t be gullible.
Comedians who see themselves as the protagonist? They’re gullible. They swallow the dominant narrative wholesale, because they won’t do the work to try and understand anyone else’s perspective. Why would they? They’re the main character. These comedians often seemed ground-breaking when they were young, because this single-minded self-obsession helped them reject old-fashioned values.
But as they get older, the same condition causes them to reject emerging progressive values.
They think they’re cool. Arguing with Mary Whitehouse was cool in their 20s. They think it looks the same when they’re in their 50s and arguing with 19-year-olds. They like it when you’re offended, because they think it’s cool to offend people.
So here’s a secret. Comedians don’t CARE if they’ve hurt your feelings. That makes them feel powerful. Instead, talk about how old-fashioned they are. Oh, what a shame, they’ve failed to keep up with the times. Gutted. They seemed so exciting 20 years ago.
“You’re not funny” doesn’t hurt a comedian. They believe they’re funny because every night, rooms full of strangers laugh at them. Comedians don’t crave validation for how funny they are. They crave validation for how INTERESTING they are.
“There was something awesome about being at a truck stop at like two a.m. putting eyeliner on with big burly truckers everywhere. It was just really dangerous.”
Little complaint about the implicit social class bigotry here. “Truckers are dangerous / homophobic / prone to violence” is the leftist equivalent of saying the same thing about black men. It’s classist instead of racist but the underlying attitude is the same.
Donald Trump, many other Republican politicans and pundits, and even some Democratic Party politicians are literally playing games with Representative Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) life.
The bad faith arguments, lies of omission, blatant mischaracterization of Omar’s statements, fear mongering, and disingenuous appeals to patriotism that contribute to this need to end.
“The attacks on Omar have been steady and insidious, and it’s more obvious now than ever what they’re based on. When Crenshaw and Trump connect her to 9/11, and when commentators on Fox News question whether she’s ‘American first' and suggest that her hijab indicates she doesn’t follow the U.S. Constitution, the religious bigotry is clear. It’s no longer possible to deny.”
“Allison said that her intention was to scare Jewish people, and people of different races, other than white,” the affidavit states. “Allison spoke at length about her racist beliefs and her efforts to ‘wake people up.’”
“One of her writings said, ‘Every race but white will die this WILL happen.'”
"Spray painted swastikas, Nazi symbols, and threats of violence were found at two churches, two public schools, two homes, an art center, and a political office in Norman.”
“Carlineo told the agents he is a patriot, that he loves President Donald Trump and hates radical Muslims in government, the complaint stated.”
This is the logical result of never-ending wars in the Middle East and of the rhetoric coming from Donald Trump, many Republicans, and segments of conservative and certainly far-right media.
White power adherents need to be fought vigorously, and the Democratic Party needs to more staunchly support Representative Omar (D-MN) instead of marginalizing her.
bigots focusing on banning gender affirming care, something proven to save kids lives, instead of banning, or at the very least heavily reforming, assault rifle regulations. I’m sick & tired of ppl claiming this is a free country. We’re free to die but not be our authentic selves.
I just was notified that a post of me wearing this costume (from two years ago) was just removed for violating community standards of pornography… I ask you, are covered, fake tits now considered pornography by instagram?… I think we can all see this for what it is… censorship of a person, not content.
Instagram, if you are going to out source your censorship monitoring to India, you better have guidelines that make them aware that being fat and queer does not warrant eradication of content and threats of deplatforming in America.
Shame on you Instagram!!!
And to my audience, it’s worth noting that I have had censorship issues across multiple platforms since having done press about my involvement in a documentary critical of the founder of Fox News, Roger Ailes.
Happy pride STOP REBLOGGING FROM @roach-works HE IS A PEDO INCEST LIKING RAPE FETISHIST
FEATURING A FIC HE WROTE ABOUT SOMEONE BEING RAPED HE REBLOGGED LITERALLY TODAY
STOP PUTTING THIS FREAK ON MY DASH
FUN FACTS:
-if you blacklist someone as well as blocking them, you don’t have to see them anymore!
-sayinghappy pride and then ironically calling someone a freak for writing fanfic with dark and uncomfortable themes doesn’t actually absolve you of being a twerp
-the fic isn’t about someone being raped, you absolute dingus, it’s a tagged rape/noncon because it deals with themes of past sexual abuse, assault and coercion, and tagging heavy subjects is the best way to help people avoid reading stuff they don’t like.
-you did a good job of not reading a story with subjects you don’t like! you completely fucking beefed it on then making assumptions about the content of the story and the intentions of the writer
-and wrote a halfassed and inaccurate callout for a queer creator prefaced with ‘happy pride’
-i tag all my stories with the strongest and worst tags available specifically so no one stumbles into being triggered by heavy, traumatizing subjects without fair warning.
-i still write stories with heavy, traumatizing subjects because exploring the ways abuse, coercion, and exploitation shape our identities and our sexualities is really interesting to me. none of my stories have anything to do with a sexual attraction to children.
-fanfiction isn’t just about gratification. there’s also nothing wrong with gratification. but in a number of cases stories are a way to explore subjects and raise questions, rather than deliver a direct moral instruction. please keep this in mind when you look at the work of writers who foreground heavy social issues like sexual abuse, class exploitation, traumatic violence, etc.
-people call me a pedo because they don’t actually give a shit about nuance, or leaving someone they dislike alone. this is unfortunate, because, again, i am not and never have been sexually attracted to children, and this energy could really have gone towards a more constructive purpose.
-happy pride! if you don’t like what other queers are up to, BLOCK AND BLACKLIST THEM.
Not to even mention the fact that the original accusations were spearheaded by a Nazi RP fanboy. Happy pride let’s spread pedophilia libel against fellow queers I fuckin guess!
even worse! the accusation of child predation was started and spread by a nazi rp fanboy who had inappropriately sexual conversations with someone he thought was 13 but was actually 12.
so the accusations of child predation were started by the actualchild predator in this instance
so fun fact: if you spread this libel about roach YOU ARE SUPPORTING A CHILD PREDATOR…in addition to a handful of other shitty things like the homophobia/transphobia of accusing a queer person of being sexually predatory for funsies
this essay originally looked a lot different. it was originally just about whitewashing in the mo xiang tong xiu fandom. however i’m uncomfortable writing that essay. and not because i’m scared people will be mean to me, or because i don’t know what to say.
the problem is that in mxtx fandom, public incidents of racism are consistently mined for entertainment. and whether or not the white people who enjoy drama sleuthing intend it, turning racism into a spectacle creates a chilling effect on people of color’s ability to talk about racism.
i’m going to talk about this in three parts: first, a case study in racism as entertainment; second, my personal reflections on that event; third, the broader historical-cultural context for talking about china, suffering, and entertainment.
I used to say that online fandom thinks it can solve racism through bullying. This essay presents a frightening alternative: fandom isn’t tryingto solve racism. It bullies because it’s fun. (And the shared experience, the memes and the dogpiles, provide a sense of community.) Bertrand Russell’s paragraph is horrible but I won’t be able to get that image out of my head.
what really fucking bothers me in conversations about racism and saying that some work has racist elements people always counter with “I don’t think the author had deliberate racist ideology in mind” cause it’s like that doesn’t fucking matter. it doesn’t have to be deliberate to be racist. most people don’t go hee hee hoo hoo I’m gonna put racist things in this. everyone was raised in a racist society and covert racism exists and yes needs to be examined in ourselves and everywhere and yes even in works you like author “deliberate” intent or no
this applies to other forms of bigotry too. listen to the voices of those who have to live under systemic oppression
the word “queer” being used by someone who uses that word to describe their own experience of love and their cherished community should not ever sound the same to you as it does coming out of the mouth of a homophobe. acting like these two types of people are the same is unbelievably cruel
^^^
Adding on once again: there is no word for our experiences that has not been used as a slur and isn’t *still* used as a slur.
My mother never said fag but she sure could say “gay” in a way that made it clear that was what she meant
“Homosexual” in the mouth of a Southern Republican US Senator is more vile than “faggot” in the mouth of a 50-year-old gay man from Seattle, where they made an attempt at one point to reclaim the word. (Unlike queer, it didn’t really work.)
Hell. “Those people” in the mouth of a homophobic mom to a closeted gay teen is probably fouler than either of those.
Just chiming in here from over on the disability side of things, where we can testify that it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, your terminology will get used as a slur by people who don’t want you to exist because you fuck up their ideas of how the world should be. So, call yourself whatever you want, and don’t yield to the people who don’t care what you’re called, because your greatest crime is existing in the first place. They’re never going to have a polite word for you anyway.
Children of color are old enough to face racism when they’re born. Old enough to bear the weight of stereotypes & hate before their little eyes can focus. But somehow white kids are supposed to be too delicate & too shielded to even know race exists because somehow that might hurt them. When your definition of innocent child doesn’t include my babies? I know what you’re on & I don’t have any patience for the lies you tell yourself or your children.
I don’t care about convincing every cis person to drop their prejudices against trans people I care about taking away their power and ability to act on those prejudices in ways that harm us
“If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you’re anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.”
fyi for those in Phoenix Arizona: stay away from Target because the Phoenix Police still won’t arrest this dude despite it being illegal to declare intention of violence like this
HEY GUYS/GALS/THEY’S I literally hate being the person asking people to reblog something and I scroll past posts that do, but I have been crying tonight about this, because I remember the Pulse shooting where LGBTQIA people lost their lives and the idea of another attack like that terrifies me, so please, because Phoenix has over 1 million people, just reblog? sorry.
Nationalism is a disease on Earth that prevents the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat and must be wiped out. The only form of nationalism that is acceptable is in the form of Marxist-Leninist national liberation, similar to what the People’s Republic of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Cuba has experienced. As the hierarchy of capital grows, nationalism blinds the average citizen of the horrors of imperialism due to an increase in immediate material conditions. Nationalism is thus a coping mechanism for the have-nots, instead of a scientific outlook on the status of socioeconomic and political hierarchies. Nationalism shall not be tolerated in a communist nation and world, but it is important to manipulate and arrange current forms of nationalism to oppose imperialism and western chauvinism.
A few days ago Alan Chambers, of the now defunct Exodus International [an organisation which claimed to help ‘cure’ people of their same sex orientation], wrote an open apology to the LGBTQ community for the harm it had caused with its reparative therapy.
When my partner started to read the story out to me at 7am after I just woke up, I didn’t really know how engage with it. It seemed like something I’d been avoiding had risen to consciousness. I haven’t really dealt with my faith and sexuality in any concrete way. I guess I’ve been coming to terms with my sexuality after 15 years of having not done this, rather than figuring out what that means for a faith I had/have. And while this post won’t fully explain where I feel I am in regard to this, I feel it’s a good opportunity to address some issues that I know I have come to have an opinion on, and why I think they’re important.
This will mainly be addressed to Christians, people of various religious persuasions, and all those others [whatever your reasons] who think that same-sex attraction isn’t acceptable.
The things I’d like to talk about are 1) Why Alan Chamber’s apology is a mostly a load of crap. 2) Why it’s homophobic to not accept LGBT people into your community. 3) Why my lack of acceptance of your view on homosexuality is different from your lack of acceptance of my view on homosexuality. 4) Why I’m disappointed with a lot of my christian *friends*.
So, Alan Chambers has apologised to the LGBT community. He has closed his ‘pray-the-gay-away’ organisation. Here is an excerpt from that apology:
I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly “on my side” who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.
You might think, if you’re at all open-minded, that this is a good thing. Well done Alan Chambers. A positive step forward. And, you know what, I think it is. It’s important to hear people who had been so staunchly against you apologise. It’s more than a lot of people would be willing to do. However, if we look a little deeper, nothing really seems to have changed. And my fear is that, this actually makes things worse. With an apology for trying to change people’s sexual orientation, make everybody ‘straight’, and exclude those who were unwilling to go along with such an idea, [i.e. support oppression and discrimination] you might expect some positive affirmation of LGBT orientations: i.e “I’m sorry that I told you that being gay wasn’t ok; for trying to help you be more straight; for the hurt this has caused you – please forgive me. It’s ok to be gay.” But this is not what has happened. There has been an apology, with no change of attitude towards LGBT peoples at the core. Here is the next excerpt from the apology:
I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.
Alan Chambers does not believe that same sex attraction is acceptable. He does not think that gay marriage is a positive step. And he won’t apologise for this. Won’t apologise! What was he apologising for then?
Just to be clear: he will apologise for the hurt caused in the past, but won’t apologise for propping up, proclaiming, and continuing a belief system and institution which will continue to hurt, exclude, discriminate against the LGBT community. He won’t apologise for his beliefs about marriage, but he won’t try and hurt you any more by claiming that he has changed his sexual preference and erased his own same-sex desire [which he was lying about] so you should be able to too. But he will continue to believe that he had the *right* view of marriage and of sexual practice and orientation, i.e. same-sex attraction is still fundamentally *sinful*.
He says he wants to continue the conversation and cultivate human flourishing. How can someone flourish when they are constantly trying to erase part of themselves? Alan Chambers has a wife and family. He admits that he is still attracted to men. His apology was, in part, for claiming to not have these attractions, and for saying that it was possible to overcome them. His apology was not for having said that these attractions were sinful, evil, and unnatural. This, I assume, has still not changed. It’s a disgusting thing when someone apologises to you for the hurt they’ve caused, and then continues to tell you that you’re wrong and they’re right, indicating that they’re quite unaware of the hurt they’ve caused, or how they’ve caused it.
Another problem with this issue is that Alan Chambers has a wife. There will be a divide on this issue. *Generalisation warning* The Christians will say ‘Look, you can change your sexual orientation, this is the proof.’ The gay community will say, ‘He admits he’s still attracted to men, he’s just lying to himself and using Jesus as an excuse. He’s totally gay.’
I’d like to say this: if Alan Chambers wants to have a wife and be attracted to men as well as women, then that is just fine. We might call it bisexuality; we might call it being queer, or having non-normative sexuality; we might even, if we’re really progressive, not need to call it anything. I’m not interested in interrogating Alan Chamber’s personal life. What is not ok is to try and claim someone’s sexuality for your team, because you think you know best what certain indications of sexual attraction mean.
What is also not ok is for Alan Chambers to continue to tell others, inside and outside of his faith community, that same-sex attraction is fundamentally sinful. And this, I imagine, is where many of you will say ‘Well hold on a minute, if we can’t tell you how to live then don’t try and tell us how to live or what to believe.’ This is a classic response from Christians I have encountered.
I’d like to move on to why I think my attitude towards fundamentalist Christians’ beliefs is different from their attitude towards my sexual orientation.
I’ll state here at the beginning of this section that I think that those who believe same-sex attraction to be sinful and unnatural, are homophobic and bigoted. Yes. Homophobia is not only a ‘fear’ of homosexuality, but an aversion to it, discrimination against it, and delegitimization of it, whether actively or passively. Bigotry is an intolerance held towards those who hold different opinions from oneself. Many people hold these traits without knowing that they do.
There are different ways to approach the reasons that same sex attraction is acceptable. One is just to state that it is. Simple. Heterosexuals don’t have to prove, justify, or argue for their sexual preference, so why should anyone who falls outside of that category have to? Why is the weight of responsibility on LGBT peoples rather than on those who exclude them?
Some people go for this, surprisingly (this is irony for those of you who grew up in sheltered communities where you didn’t know anyone gay until you went to university, or still have never had a gay friend). It’s got various names, like acceptance and love.
But, as I know, lots of people [read fundamentalist Christians] don’t go for this argument. So I’ll try a few other approaches. But I do it with the acknowledgment that I and other non-heterosexuals shouldn’t HAVE to do this. We shouldn’t have to educate. We aren’t required to justify ourselves. Why? In order to contradict my lack of need to justify myself -Because what we believe isn’t hurting anyone. This is one reason that why what I believe is different to what you believe.
Second, most people don’t choose to have same-sex attraction, it just is part of their experience in the world. I’m not saying it’s something you’re born with either; by a culmination of various factors, one’s sexual orientation arises. But I also believe that sexuality can be fluid, can change over time. [This is not an attempt to say that everyone is bisexual.] If you’ve never thought about this, try the following: whatever your sexual attraction, try changing it. Do it now, wherever you’re sitting: imagine being attracted to the sex you are not usually attracted to. Take a few minutes. Can you do it? This experiment does two things. It either shows you that it’s difficult to change your sexuality just to tie in with a religious doctrine, or it shows you that sexuality can be fluid and not fixed to rigid categories. The argument works both ways. For anyone who has had to fight and struggle against their sexual desires, it can be distressing, tiring, and damaging. Please don’t be someone who tries to force others to do this. It’s inhumane.
A response to this will be that there are people within the Christian community who have ‘succeeded’ in ‘changing’ their sexuality: they have been transformed! Unless you are one of those people, you can never really know what it’s like, or whether that attraction has been changed, augmented, diminished, or just repressed. For Alan Chambers, his desires never went away, but he is also attracted to women. But there are many whose sexuality will not take this form, and shouldn’t be forced into a heterosexual model of sexuality. I would also add that my guess would be that 90% of those within one of these communities who has been *transformed*, if asked honestly, would have preferred it if their sexual desires were just accepted and not labeled as abhorrent. The other 10% have probably internalized homophobia to such a degree that they are still praising God that they’re not gay. I had internalised a lot of homophobia and it has taken me about a year to come to terms with my same-sex attraction after years of rejecting, avoiding, and repressing it. The fear that is associated with same-sex desire when you try to start coming to terms with it is difficult. I imagine that this fear grips many Christians who experience same-sex attraction. It can be demoralising, cause depression, and provoke suicidal thoughts and suicide. Sound familiar to anyone who’s been through it or been close to anyone who’s been through it? If this if you, please do let me know if I’m wrong. I’d like to hear of your experience.
But for those of you who haven’t ever had to think about or question your sexuality to such a degree – please stop telling people that they’re wrong and sinful. It completely erases people’s experiences, difficulties and traumas. If you’ve never even questioned, or thought about your own sexuality, let alone other people’s, then please stop to consider how difficult and oppressive your attitude may be. For those of us who have lived the experience of same-sex attraction, perhaps you could pay us the courtesy of listening to us rather than ramming the bible [albeit 1 or 2 verses] in our faces and asking us to change.
Not allowing practicing LGBT people into your community is discrimination, and therefore homophobic and bigoted. Allowing LGBT people into your community, but secretly hoping they’ll change is bigoted. Allowing LGBT people, not hoping they’ll change, but not allowing them to do certain things within the community, is bigoted.
Remember when society didn’t let black people on buses; or when women weren’t able to vote; and only the upper classes were allowed into universities? Racism, sexism, classism are still issues for our society, but discrimination against someone’s sexual orientation is often over looked by Christians as different from these. “You cant join this club because you’re black” is akin to saying “you can’t join this club because you’re a lesbian”. The response to this will be that “It isn’t me who says that it’s wrong to be gay, it’s God.” Firstly, not all christians believe this, it’s YOUR interpretation, take some responsibility for a choice you have made to believe this. It didn’t pop up from nowhere, and others in your own community disagree with you, so it is a choice. You are making a choice to be bigoted. Being asked to change this belief is not akin to being asked to change your sexuality. You can do this quite easily. You can chose to keep your beliefs and not be a bigot.
This argument that ‘God says’ was also used against blacks, women and other minorities throughout history to dehumanise and exclude them from christianity. [Sexism and the church/bible is well known, just ask any women who goes to church. See the following links for a short discussion of the bible and racism: http://bgsa.rice.edu/2012/09/05/religious-racism-jesus-saves/]. The same argument can’t continue to be used against LGBT peoples. And if it is, you can’t then complain that you get called homophobic and bigoted. This is what your attitude labels you as.
Now, I’ve been told that I am a bigot because I don’t accept fundamentalist Christians’ attitudes towards homosexuality. I don’t accept this, and here is why. To resist discrimination is not bigoted. To resist hatred is not bigoted. To resist oppression is not bigoted. My lack of acceptance is in defense and support for an oppressed minority in society. It is resistance to intolerance which doesn’t tell fundamentalist christians how to live their lives, or that they cannot have their faith; they are still free to express their sexual desires, get married, go to church, believe in Jesus, pray, etc. Your lack of acceptance for my sexual orientation is a dictation, a closing down of differences, an intolerance to others, an obstinate belief that you are superior and that others are wrong.
The bigotry would be returned if I was claiming that you couldn’t be a christian, couldn’t practice your faith. This exists in some parts of the world, and shouldn’t be accepted either. But that’s not what I’m saying. I might even want to practice a type of faith myself in the future, so I certainly don’t want to close that door. The difference is that your lack of acceptance oppresses people and that mine does not. Yours leads to discrimination in the work place, bullying in the school yard, depression, suicide, lack of equal rights [marriage], hate crimes, murder, and a host of other things that you haven’t ever thought about. Does my lack of acceptance of your intolerance lead to the same kinds of oppression for you? Your faith does not equal your belief that homosexuality is sinful. You can have one without the other. It’s not even integral.
Your faith is a choice, and your interpretation of the bible is also a choice. Please take some responsibility for these choices and stop hiding behind ‘But God says.’ You could change your attitude towards homosexuality and it would have no affect your life. Zero consequences for your daily living. You could continue to believe in God, be a christian, live the life you wanted to. The same is not true for your lack of acceptance of same-sex desire. Your choice to take issue with something that doesn’t even affect your life is what is astonishing to those of us whose lives it does affect. You think that you can control people’s behaviour regarding something which doesn’t even personally affect you. It’s the height of arrogance.
And who knows, one day it may well affect your life. One day you might be attracted to someone of the same sex. Maybe you already have been and you fear of this is why you’re so staunchly homophobic. Your children could be gay; one of your parents might come out; a close friend or a co-worker might share with you years of struggling with their sexuality. And you might have to begin to confront how your unexamined attitude then affects those relationships.
If the response to this is that that kind of belief is dishonouring to God, then all I have left to say to that is, why would a loving God be mad when two people love one another? Christians belief in love, and whether its between two men, two women, a trans guy and a lesbian, or any other combination, surely if people love and support one another, this isn’t going to be frowned upon by God. Love your neighbour as yourself: do to others as you would have them do to you. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn’t be attracted to the opposite sex any more. It was sinful? You had to end your relationship and repent. You’d think they were crazy right? Just try stepping in someone else’s shoes for a minute. I’m not using love as the main reason here, because I don’t believe it’s the place to start actually. I’ve tried to show you some others, but love is also quite a good argument. And, if you tell me that it’s more loving to keep your conviction which says that homosexuality is sinful, then I’ll tell you that I’ve experienced that sort of love, and I’m not interested in it. It’s not more loving, it’s not better for my mental health, it doesn’t help me in the long run, and I won’t accept it as love. It’s homophobic and bigoted hate. Yes, it’s hateful.
This is why Alan Chamber’s apology is worse than an outright statement of what he thinks about homosexuality. It pretends [knowingly or not] to be loving and compassionate, when in fact it hides a rejection and a hate for queer people. I’d rather deal with someone who told me straight away that they believed homosexuality was wrong than those who wrap it up in liberal speech and try pretend that they love you and want the best for you, only to end up saying things such as ‘But homosexuality isn’t Gospel sexuality’, ‘It’s not God’s best for you’, ‘God still loves you despite your same-sex attraction.’
You know what, fuck you!
Too strong for your delicate ears? Well your whole attitude towards homosexuality is like a constant resounding fuck you to me and other queer people, so one small expletive is nothing in comparison.
I’ve been in that place where God’s best for me has been presented, and it’s not the best for me, God’s or otherwise. Saying that you respectfully disagree is a complete rejection of my experience and I find it deeply offensive.
There is a saying that the worst slave owners were the one’s who were kind to their slaves. I think the worse christians are the ones who profess their love for you but still fundamentally reject you. I have no time for this at the moment. If you think that’s just returning your intolerance towards me back at you, then you’ve heard nothing of what I’ve said. Should black people support white people who think they’re inferior? Should women stay close their male friends who continually make sexist remarks? No. They should fight against these things. In the same way, if you think that same-sex desire is wrong, then my lack of acceptance to that is a resistance to discrimination, not a reiteration of discrimination. My lack of acceptance does not discredit your personhood. Yours does mine. Coretta Scott King says that
“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood…This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
The final thing I want to say, to my christian friends, is that I know I’ve not be in touch with some of you for a while. It’s been a strange, complex and difficult year or so. And I haven’t always known how to speak to you about what’s been going on in my life. From the few conversations I’ve had with some christian friends about my sexuality, I’ve been told I’m deluded, confused, a moral relativist, on a path to somewhere else, spouting post-modern creeds, possessed by a sex demon, and of course, an intolerant bigot. So you can see that I’m not always hugely excited about these types of conversation. But I’ve also had one excellent conversation with a Christian, which shows me that it is possible to love, support and accept without being intolerant – in two directions! But I’d really like to hear from you in regard to this if you’re willing to engage in a dialogue about it, where ‘God says’ is not your only response to my bisexuality.
Hey I know that we’re dealing with something huge right now but trump is trying to allow adoption agencies to refuse services to lgbtq+ families…. not only is this descrimination but there are TOO many children in the system for them to allow this. Those kids need homes…. I’m disgusted
My guess is that they’re trying to pass this kind of stuff while the country is distracted and focused on other things??? Don’t let up on the current movement at hand, but please give this the attention it needs to be stopped
OP posted this 17 hours ago from 6/7/2020 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I have a suspicion there are a lot more angry Christians who would harm someone in a public restroom than there are creepy LGBT folks who would hurt someone in a public restroom.
I think it’s interesting to see the reactions to today’s Dracula Daily that are like, “He did a racism! He used the g-slur!” and don’t go deeper than that. I was born in the early 80s and didn’t know the g-slur was a slur until like between 5 and 10 years ago. I mean, there was a whole Disney movie that used the word like it was no big deal when I was in middle school. I’m not saying Disney wouldn’t do a racism, I’m saying Disney wouldn’t have put language in a 90s kids’ movie that wasn’t considered “politically correct” in mainstream America at the time. Anyway, my point is that until sometime in the mid 2010s, I honestly thought G****** was just what that group of people were called, or was a term for nomadic people in general. I guarantee there are well-meaning Americans in the year 2022 who aren’t tuned into online antiracist discourse who still think that. Stoker could’ve easily used the word thinking it was no different than calling someone an Englishman or a cowboy.
The blatant racism here is how the Romani are portrayed. They are “without religion, save superstition,” i.e. Godless heathens, i.e. their religion isn’t a version of Christianity so it isn’t a legitimate religion. They’re ignorant for only speaking their own language, even though Jonathan doesn’t speak or understand it and doesn’t understand most of the foreign language he’s encountered on this trip. They act overtly deferential and subservient to Jonathan. They take his money and then sell him out to the Count.
If this narrative had only used the word Romani or the name that this particular group of Romani used for themselves (I’m seeing meta that Szgany is a slur, too, but I haven’t looked into it), this depiction would still be racist. While it is important to update our language as we gain better information, I think terminology is ultimately less important than whether a marginalized character or group is being portrayed as an offensive racial stereotype. I see all kinds of writing by modern writers, professional and amateur, that uses all the correct 2020s terminology but still portrays characters as the invulnerable black woman, the submissive Asian woman, the predatory brown man, the Jewish moneylender, etc. Again, I’m not saying terminology doesn’t matter and shouldn’t be critiqued in older writing, I’m just saying we shouldn’t let terminology distract from content.
